********************************EXCERPT***********************************************
R. Gates says:
Interesting paper. certainly worthy of a second read, but a few thoughts off the top.
First, in the conclusion he remarks:
“However, a permanent in- crease in water vapor in the atmosphere due to an in- crease in insolation, evapotranspiration and mainly temperature change in ocean water…”
Of course he makes throughout the paper that it is a warming earth that is causing the increase in water vapor, and everyone of course knows that water vapor is a more potent GH gas than CO2, but his conclusion is quite empty in regards to what could be causing that longer term warming that is causing the increase in water vapor. Solar insolation has not increased during the period in question and temperature change in the oceans offers no long term answer either as that heat must ultimately come from an increase in solar insolation (or increased GH gas activity). In short, his reasoning seems a bit circular as he acknowledges the warming but finds no source other than water vapor, which his says is being increased from the warming. So what is the source of the warming?
Second, he seems to be looking for monthly or seasonal warming signatures from the fluctuations in CO2, yet no GCM has ever indicated that such signatures would be found but rather, it is the long-term increase in CO2 since around 1750 (up 40% since that time) that would eventually become the dominant signal upon which other natural cycles would ride. His insistence that various shorter term CO2 fluctuations should be seen in the temperature data is unsupported by any climate model.
Finally, it is interesting that he does acknowledge the general increase in water vapor and warming of the oceans over time, without even mentioning the fact that these have both long been cited as one of the effects of general AGW. The even stronger positive-feedback induced GH warming caused by increased water vapor was one of the effects cited many decades ago as stemming from the 40% rise in CO2 since the 1750′s. Why does the author choose not to reference this possibility?
All in all an interesting paper but suspicious in its circular reasoning, appeal to the lack of effects of CO2 that no GCM’s have ever predicted would exist, and lack of acknowledgment of basic feedback processes long predicted as existing between increased CO2 and increasing water vapor.
I understand your post, but sorry, your point?
Other than that his logic is incomplete.
I don't know whether it was intentional or just a careless use of language but R. Gates is making a patently false statement there. Heat cannot originate from a GH gas. The whole point of GH Theory is that atmospheric gasses act as an insulator trapping heat. The same way a down jacket traps heat. Goose down does not produce any heat either. To ascribe activity to GH gasses is false for the same reason. There is no activity in a GH gas except at the atomic level. The atoms in a goose feather are just as active.
The author may not have established where the heat comes from but everyone can stop examining the down jacket, er, I mean the GH gasses, as a source.
R. Gates may have a point there but it's not particularly compelling. In fact it's rather nit-picking. The GCMs may not show any indicators of a seasonal fluctuation in temps that correlate with seasonal CO2 fluctuations. (How could they even get an accurate measure, in ppm, of global CO2 fluctuations for a period of a few months?) But GH Theory stands on its own prediction that there must be an overall positive signature of warming that could only come from the insulating properties of atmospheric gasses. It is a signature that is extremely easy to gather data on which means that it is either there or it isn't. It isn't.
No Smoking Hot Spot (The Australian)
Those two articles take Greenhouse Theory at face value and by the criterion set up in the theory itself finds no evidence of warming on the basis of greenhouse effect.
That means that if the earth's average temperature rose 100 degrees, and all life roasted off of the face of the planet, but no "hot spot" in the upper atmosphere existed then one of two things must be true. 1.) The warming had nothing to do with GH gasses. or 2.) GH Theory is so flawed that its own criterion is a complete failure in establishing GH-produced warming even when it is actually happening.
The odds that a theory can be so bad that it can't prove itself correct even though the ultimate conclusion is true are staggering. That would mean that all the work ever done on GH Theory wasn't similar to but exactly the same as 100 monkeys with typewriters eventually writing the Bible. 100% random luck.